Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (13901)	9/24/2003 4:36:46 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

I said, with some qualifications, that a wealth transfer has no net economic impact. I said lowering taxes increases the per capita wealth. I said there would be NO stimulus from Bush plan. This point is arguable. I don’t consider Bush’s plan a wealth transfer. This point is arguable as well. i agree there will be a stimulus. that's obvious. but that isn't the question most folks want answered. the question is whether the BENEFIT of the stimulus is worth the COST of the stimulus - AND FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. What’s obvious is that you didn’t comprehend what I wrote. that's the issue that you don't address b/c you've oversimplified the situation. i know you are arguing a specific, technical point. but elroy wasn't really debating that point, although i think he didn't express it very well. his perspective was totally different. did you not comprehend this? i woulda thought a smart guy would've figured this out. When a derelict comes up to you on the street yelling that Japan won the war do you debate the guy? Maybe the guy really believes Japan won the war, or maybe he is making a philosophical point that Japan’s economy outperformed the US post WWII – or maybe he is just a nut. Better to just move on rather than ask him. but i think i do. you are merely saying that the money is somewhere within the unit as a whole, therefore, it represents "zero economic impact" to the WHOLE. my point is that there is no "whole" perspective. the whole is made up of individuals and each has their own view. Elroy claimed the “National Capital” was being destroyed – if he meant wealth then he is wrong. My response to him was on point and accurate – given his assertion. If you have some exotic meaning of "economic impact," do share it instead of just saying "you don't understand it." i must've missed it when you initially defined it. The first paragraph of my previous post to you has my definition. You aren’t reading what I’m writing or not comprehending it. Do you now see why I was reticent to respond to you?